Just because they are both current era players doesn't mean they are the greatest. There are other great players in the past as well you know.

Click to expand...

Indeed there are great players in the past and i was a fan of those legends too.
But tell me who do you consider to be a greater all round player than Federer and a greater head-head player than Nadal?

Indeed there are great players in the past and i was a fan of those legends too.
But tell me who do you consider to be a greater all round player than Federer and a greater head-head player than Nadal?

Laver has the titles (200), he has the Calendar Slam (2) he has domination over his rivals, he has longevity. He has it all. No holes. Or at least, the least amount of holes in his resume out of everyone in history

Laver has the titles (200), he has the Calendar Slam (2) he has domination over his rivals, he has longevity. He has it all. No holes. Or at least, the least amount of holes in his resume out of everyone in history

Click to expand...

How much do you value peak level of play in your assessment of goat criteria?

Because if you rate it highly, then basically what you're saying is tennis player's abilities peaked in the 50's and 60's and it's been all downhill ever since.

On the other hand, if you value (unique) achievements as the main criteria, then Nadal's 3 consecutive slams on 3 different surfaces in one calendar year trumps Laver's calendar slams imo. Not to mention Federer has an uncountable number of records, both notable and obscure.

The accomplishment is diluted due to the homogenized surfaces. Laver won the GS pre-homogenization, and while he didn't win one on hard, he did on clay and grass which have the largest margin of difference.

As far as achievements in tennis go, Borg's three consecutive pre-homogenized channel slams is pretty much the bossest imo.

Laver has the titles (200), he has the Calendar Slam (2) he has domination over his rivals, he has longevity. He has it all. No holes. Or at least, the least amount of holes in his resume out of everyone in history

Click to expand...

I'm just curious 90's Clay, were you actually around to watch Laver at his prime?

The accomplishment is diluted due to the homogenized surfaces. Laver won the GS pre-homogenization, and while he didn't win one on hard, he did on clay and grass which have the largest margin of difference.

As far as achievements in tennis go, Borg's three consecutive pre-homogenized channel slams is pretty much the bossest imo.

Click to expand...

Even though the surfaces are played at a similar speed, people sometimes fail to acknowledge the difference in movement required to be successful on all 3 surfaces.
Why do you think Djokovic sucks on grass as opposed to hard - too slippery to slide.
Why do you think Sampras sucks on clay as opposed to grass - can't slide
Speed of court will only influence your style of play, but mastery of movement will dictate your success on a particular surface.
Laver never won slam on Hard, nor did Borg. This is their biggest blemish.

Even though the surfaces are played at a similar speed, people sometimes fail to acknowledge the difference in movement required to be successful on all 3 surfaces.
Why do you think Djokovic sucks on grass as opposed to hard - too slippery to slide.
Why do you think Sampras sucks on clay as opposed to grass - can't slide
Speed of court will only influence your style of play, but mastery of movement will dictate your success on a particular surface.
Laver never won slam on Hard, nor did Borg. This is their biggest blemish.

Click to expand...

laver never played a major on hard courts .... however he did win many other tournaments on hard courts ...

Indeed there are great players in the past and i was a fan of those legends too.
But tell me who do you consider to be a greater all round player than Federer and a greater head-head player than Nadal?

14 Grand Slams, 7 of them Wimbledon and you claim he's a loser?
First off, I never even brought any other pro's name (Sampras, Borg or any others) into the discussion. I said that the intent of this thread's phone premise was not a GOAT discussion per se but instead a poorly disguised fanboy circle jerk. The OP's later posts proved that and your impossibly stupid post above (even dumb by your standards) proves my points:
1. The OP is a fanboy staging a fanboy circle jerk, and
2. You are a fanboy (fangirl? I'm not sure which) who hasn't a clue about tennis.

Fed is the GOAT. Who argued that? I simply suckered you into exposing yourself as the fanboy/fangirl that you are and goaded you into making a hopelessly stupid statement (even stupid by your standards). For you to call Sampras a loser on the court proves that you're a know-nothing. To call Sampras a loser off the court? Well, consider this: I just saw that on a Saturday (yesterday) you posted THIRTY ONE posts from your mom's basement. Imagine, 31 posts on a weekend--hahaha! Nice life. Now who's the loser dropdeadartist?

well between federer and sampras i think it is pretty clear federer becasue he has trumped almost all his records and he has the career slam. both have holes in their careers so neither one is perfect. sampras sucks on clay and federer sucks in the head to head with rafa

. Federer is the most accomplished player ever,, but his head to head against his main rival is appalling enough to seriously question whether he can be considered GOAT. If the H2H stays the same and Nadal wins at least 4 more slams, and Fed stays on 17, then I'm pretty sure Nadal will become widely regarded as the GOAT.

IDK Dedan's. I wouldn't call a player who had his tongue out all the time and a bad tipper a winner...Just sayin.. :lol:

Click to expand...

Michael Jordan (another winner) had his tongue out even more than Sampras. As for the tipping swipe, who was that who after saying it said it was "out of line?" Ah yes, the phony 'image-is-everything' wig-wearing meth addict.

The problem with Laver's grand slams as I understand it was - it was mostly on grass. Unlike today there are 3 different surfaces.

Click to expand...

First of all, hardcourts were much rarer in the 1960s, but Laver won the best titles on all surfaces in 1969, including hardcourt. Secondly, the grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all very different conditions, so it's misleading to just say "oh, 3 of the 4 majors are grass" as though they are the same. They certainly weren't.